Eric Holder: Constitution Doesn’t Cover Terrorists, Even If They’re American Citizens

[Ishmael]

Perhaps some of you may remember my posts concerning the Bush phone intercepts back in the 2003 time frame. The democrats ranted and railed over that gross 'invasion of privacy' and threatened congressional hearings, etc.

By 2008 they controlled both houses of congress and the presidency, was any effort made to enact laws restricting the practice? Of course there wasn't, just as I predicted 9 years ago. As a matter of fact the practice has been expanded, certainly not to my surprise and just as I predicted on that point as well.

And while the democrats are the most blatantly hypocritical concerning these false 'outrages', the main stream republicans are little better. The legislative branches of both parties have incrementally been ceding their constitutional powers to the executive. And this ceding has been done for no other reason than election politics. If they absolve themselves of responsibility they can go before their constituents and claim, "It wasn't me."

Unless we start electing representatives and senators with some intestinal fortitude we will soon find ourselves living under a dictatorship in all but name. The legislative branch, like the senate of Rome, will find itself relegated to a figurehead status.

Ishmael

 

[busybody..]

It all comes down to this: Do you trust your government?

I trusted BUSHCO

I dont trust NIGGACO

 

[busybody..]

Perhaps some of you may remember my posts concerning the Bush phone intercepts back in the 2003 time frame. The democrats ranted and railed over that gross 'invasion of privacy' and threatened congressional hearings, etc.

By 2008 they controlled both houses of congress and the presidency, was any effort made to enact laws restricting the practice? Of course there wasn't, just as I predicted 9 years ago. As a matter of fact the practice has been expanded, certainly not to my surprise and just as I predicted on that point as well.



Ishmael

yes, we remember

just as we remember me saying EXACTLY the same thing as the COWARD RACIST HOLDER said NOW!

 

[busybody..]

worth re-reading

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=797696

 

[busybody..]

Worth re-reading this as well

And

Always remember

LIBZ/DUMZ have NO INTEREST in the US

only in their own us

FUCKING LIARS AND HIPPO CREEPS

Hillarious Rotten ClitBitch is a fucking HIPPO CREEP, of course

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Geraghty in yesterday's Morning Jolt:
Hillary Clinton suggests that criticizing Obama makes Afghans want to kill Americans. Madam Secretary, with all the respect due to your office: Shut up.

Your job is to represent us, not to tell us what we can and cannot say in response to American policy and overseas events. . . .

Her latest attempt to spin criticism of the administration as somehow off-limits in the name of diplomacy:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended President Obama's apology to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and warned that the GOP's condemnation of the apology could further "inflame" the situation.

Last week, U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan accidentally burned some Qurans, which sparked deadly protests in the country. Obama apologized to Karzai for the "unintentionally mishandled" books – a move that has been criticized by some Republicans.

"I find it somewhat troubling that our politics would inflame such a dangerous situation in Afghanistan," Clinton told CNN on Monday.

. . . Allahpundit [writes][,]

Which Republican soundbite, I wonder, does she think has "inflamed" a situation that's already inspired Afghan lunatics to launch suicide attacks on NATO bases and shoot American troops point blank in the head? I haven't heard of a single case of someone abroad grumbling about Newt Gingrich's rhetoric; I have read a lot of quotes from Muslims venting their rage at infidels who would dare disrespect Islam by burning the Koran.

As a prominent American leader said, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

That leader, of course, was Hillary Clinton in 2003.

 

[busybody..]

The following is worth reading

Know this

All that the RACIST COWARD, HOLDER said yesterday is EXACTLY what his law firm fought against 2001-2008, all that the LIBZ screamed about

and

IT IS WHAT BUSYBODY SAID 2001 2008, and ISH and others as well


On 'Targeted Killing' Speech, Eric Holder Strikes Out
By Andrew Cohen





Mar 6 2012, 10:40 AM ET8


Why won't the administration answer the big question: What is the legal reasoning behind targeted terror killings?



Reuters

The problem with "big" government speeches, the ones that are promised and promoted months in advance, the ones that purport to tackle the thorniest issues of the day, is that they require big political figures to deliver them. And whatever else Attorney General Eric Holder is -- a cautious lawyer, an establishment guy, a risk-adverse careerist, a stable hand at Justice -- he is decidedly not a larger-than-life official with an outsized portfolio or a penchant for going beyond where his president, the constitutional law scholar, wants him to go.

This dynamic helps explain why the attorney general's "big" speech Monday on the Obama Administration's secret "targeted killing" program is such a disappointment on so many different levels. But for a few sentences here and there, but for a few graphs about how Congress has dangerously treated this administration with far less trust and respect than the last administration, Holder's remarks at Northwestern University School of Law could largely have been written (and delivered) by any of the Bush-era attorneys general.

Six weeks ago, the Daily Beast's Daniel Klaidman wrote an excellent piece highlighting the background behind the administration's decision to "reveal publicly the legal reasoning behind its decision to kill the American-born leader of al Qaeda... Anwar al-Awlaki." In the end, Klaidman reported that the White House had decided not to reveal much at all. Klaidman memorably quoted a deputy national security advisor as suggesting the American people would get a "half Monty" instead of the "full Monty" and that's precisely what happened.

A half-Monty or, you could say, a half-hearted, half-assed explanation of why the executive branch believes it has the legal authority, and the constitutional power, to use "lethal force" against Americans living abroad. That is, if those citizens are deemed to pose "an imminent threat of violent attack upon the United States," if they cannot feasibly be captured, and if their killing can be conducted in compliance with "fundamental law of war principles." The speech cited not a single Supreme Court case for its sweeping justifications. Not one.

Anyone who cares about this issue at all understands that what matters first is the legal rationale for the administration's drone-strike policy. We need to know what the legal arguments are for such proclamations by the executive branch that, for example, the due process clause of the Constitution does not guarantee "judicial process" when a citizen's life is on the line. What Holder delivered instead was what we already know -- the political rationale for the "targeted killing" program. The New York Times told us that years ago.

It's just not good enough to offer general platitudes about adherence to the Constitution. Everybody says that. The scoundrels who drafted the "torture memos" said that. It means nothing without specifics. And the memo was short on legal specifics. For example, only two federal statutes were cited, both having nothing to do with the drone-strike program. On that we got from Holder phrases like this: "This is an indicator of our times -- not a departure from our laws and our values." Honestly, it's both, right?

FIVE QUICK THINGS ABOUT THE HOLDER SPEECH

1. We are a nation at war. It may be an endless war, never formally declared by the Congress. It may be a war against ambiguous enemies. But it's our war nonetheless. And the attorney general, early on in his prepared remarks, made sure to remind us that "like scores of attorneys and agents at the Justice Department, I go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe." I'll defer to James Fallows about this but it seems to me that the time has long passed for our attorneys general to be pretending that they are standing some guard post on some battlefield wall somewhere all day and night.

2. Baffling and dangerous. The only part of Holder's address where I thought he showed some spine, some "big speech" moxie, was the part about Congressional opposition to federal civilian trials for terror suspects. This is a sore subject with me. Of complaints about the Justice Department's successful record of prosecuting terror suspects in federal court, Holder said:


Which is why the call that I've heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling, and ultimately are so dangerous. These calls ignore reality. And if heeded, they would significantly weak -- in fact, they would cripple -- our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt to do us harm.

Here, the attorney general is exactly right. Only he didn't press his point. And he certainly didn't take the opportunity to announce that the administration was going to prosecute in federal court any terror suspect it chose to prosecute in federal court, which is the response that best comports with my understanding of core executive branch functions under the Constitution. Now, that would have been worthy of "big speech" status.

3. The military commissions. They remain, as they were in late 2001 when President George W. Bush first authorized them, the best way forward toward closing the terror-law prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And had the Bush White House done things right from the beginning the base would be closed by now. The attorney general in his speech rightly talked about how the commissions have improved. But the American people, I suspect, want to hear less talk and see more progress. Nearly nine years to the day he was captured, isn't it time we prosecuted Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Holder didn't even mention his name.

4. Imminent threat of violent attack. That's the standard. Think for a second about the differing interpretations that can be given to four of the five words in that phrase. What is imminent? What is threat? What is violent? What is attack? The attorney general says that a citizen can be targeted only after the government "has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual" possess a threat worthy of lethal force. And who gets to determine whether that review is "thorough and careful"? Why, the executive branch, of course.

5. Necessity. Distinction. Proportionality. Humanity. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Here's how the attorney general explained it:


The principle of necessity requires that the target have definite military value. The principle of distinction requires that only lawful targets - such as combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities, and military objectives - may be targeted intentionally. Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.

Call it the Obama Doctrine. Call it the Holder Doctrine. Just don't call it a policy the legal justifications of which have been fully explained to the American people

 

[oggbashan]

If an enemy individual uses lethal force against the UK, we are within our rights to kill him.

If a UK citizen uses lethal force against the UK, we can treat him as an enemy, but we could also charge him with treason.

The penalty for treason used to be hanging, drawing and quartering i.e. hanging until he is nearly dead, cutting him down, cutting open his stomach and pulling his intestines out, laying them on his chest, and then cutting him into four pieces to be displayed in prominent places to deter others. A skilled executioner could extend the traitor's life after hanging for an hour or more...

 

[busybody..]

the "penalty" for treason in your country today is

A PENSION A HOME EVERYTHING PAID FOR BY YOU!

 

[busybody..]

So! According this this NIGGER COWARD RACIST, we gotta KILL em there

but cant look for em here!


Holder Says He Finds It “Disturbing” That The NYPD Would Try And Keep City Safe From Islamist Terrorists…




Holder would prefer they waste their time looking for the mythical Tea Party “extremists.”


(Politico) — Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday that he finds “disturbing” reports that New York Police Department conducted broad surveillance of Muslims outside New York City as part of counter-terrorism efforts.

“At least what I’ve read publicly, and, again, just what I’ve read in the newspapers, is disturbing,” Holder said during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing Thursday morning. “And these are things that are under review at the Justice Department.”

Holder’s comments came after Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) asked the attorney general “how a law enforcement agency could spy on another state’s residents without notifying the authorities, the governor or the mayor even knowing about it?”

“I don’t know,” Holder replied. He said Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.), a former U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, recently complained to him about the NYPD activity.

“He expressed to me the concerns that he had. He’s now publicly expressed his concerns, as only he can,” Holder added.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has accused Christie of taking “cheap shots” at New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly over the program, which was disclosed in a long-running investigative series by the Associated Press.

 

[busybody..]

Truth revealed! Eric Holder is BUSYBODY!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For years, BUSYBODY said KILL the terrorists...regardless of them being a US citizen or not

KILL THE KIDS AS WELL



Now, Eric BUSYBODY Holder has issued a legal brief on why it was legal to kill the US BORN CLERIC in YEMEN, who was KILLED without due process, as was his son, along with other innocents

WHO KNEW

ERIC HOLDER=BUSYBODY!

I assume you will now put Holder on IGGY and call him a HATER